Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Well to read the "Occupation" section as it stands now you'd think it was a total picnic to be in an occupied country in western Europe. Nevermind a little organization called the Gestapo (try and find it anywhere in the article) or the fact that your countrymen might be Nazi collaborators and kill you or ship you off to a death camp.

I know this to be true because I've watched Allo Allo(T-H-L-K-D) only joking I did read a bit of stuff about the OSA before I remember

That is odd taht they would not even have a mention of the Gestapo >:| someone should fix that but I don't know enough about history to put the right bits in the right places, grr. seems pretty much then like how it is in China now, no idea who might be on the government's payroll, BBC reporters have said a few times people are scared to talk in public anywhere about the government even when they don't know they are journalists

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Another example of poor writing quality, error, and biased writing. (note redundant use of "colonial")

First, decolonization was mutual in many cases, not a result of the Europeans lacking prestige or resources.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Lousy analogy, but point taken. What do you think of the quote from the Wikipedia article? Do you think it is accurate to say that the Europeans were unable to retain some of their colonial empires?

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Lousy analogy, but point taken. What do you think of the quote from the Wikipedia article? Do you think it is accurate to say that the Europeans were unable to retain some of their colonial empires?

Generally when people think "colonial empire" they get images grander in scope than, say, Pitcairn or Mayotte.

WWII did see a rise in anti-colonial sentiment across the major colonies (French West Africa, Algeria, the Gold Coast, etc.) There was also an increase in urban phenomena like native trade unions and suchlike which contributed to this development. With the exception of small islands (and, say, French Guiana) the end of WWII was also the beginning of the end of colonial empires, in the sense of them being significant.

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

QUOTE(Wikipedia)

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

Thus there is yes much truth in the statement but far from 100%.

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Sun 25th March 2012, 1:09am)

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 24th March 2012, 7:04pm)

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children.

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

I'm trying to criticize a specific statement in a Wikipedia article, to show that a top 20 article in Wikipedia can have errors and bias in it for years.

You seem to be trying to make some point about colonialism.

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Sun 25th March 2012, 10:29am)

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 25th March 2012, 2:11pm)

QUOTE(Web Fred @ Sun 25th March 2012, 1:09am)

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 24th March 2012, 7:04pm)

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children.

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

That and the fact they were somewhat late to a party they only reluctantly attended.

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

I wonder what'd happen if a bunch of guys got together and basically made "Wikipedia's World War II Article: The Good Edition" and submitted it in one single edit, modifying the entire article from top to bottom. Like something so detailed (within acceptable encyclopedic limits), well-written, and informative that it clearly looks superior to anything that preceded it.

I wonder what'd happen if a bunch of guys got together and basically made "Wikipedia's World War II Article: The Good Edition" and submitted it in one single edit, modifying the entire article from top to bottom. Like something so detailed (within acceptable encyclopedic limits), well-written, and informative that it clearly looks superior to anything that preceded it.

Probably "YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THIS" and it'd get reverted, but yeah.

yeah it would be World War III, but still a good idea. You could have a bunch of ten year olds write it. At least they'd know to put a picture of Hitler at the top, not Keitel.